If one divorced his wife, and she spent the night with him at an inn, [there being witnesses to their having been alone together, but not to their having cohabited], Beth Shammai say: She does not require a second get from him. Beth Hillel say: She requires a second get from him. [Beth Hillel hold that witnesses to their being alone together are (considered) witnesses to cohabitation. And since a man does not cohabit promiscuously, (we assume that) he betrothed her with this cohabitation. And Beth Shammai hold that we do not consider witnesses to their being alone witnesses to cohabitation until they actually observe her in the act.] When is this so? If she were divorced from marriage. They agree that if she were divorced from betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, for he is not that familiar with her (and is assumed not to have cohabited with her.) If one wed her with a "bald get," she leaves this one and this one, and all of the above applies. [A "bald get" is one whose folds are more numerous than its witnesses. The rabbis instituted a folded get (get mekushar) for Cohanim, who are quick to anger and who, in the heat of their anger, might write a get to their wives, and later regret it and not be able to take them back. They, therefore, instituted a get mekushar, which is difficult to write quickly, so that in the interim, their anger might cool. One or two lines are written and folded over on the smooth (unwritten) part and sewn, and one witness signs the fold on the outside. The process is repeated a second and third time. And if there is a fold without a witness signed on the outside, this is a "bald get," and it is not valid. For we assume that in the beginning there were as many witnesses as there are folds, and we suspect that the husband told all of them to sign and that one did not. If she weds with such a get, she leaves both, and all of the above applies. This Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir, who says: "If one alters 'the currency minted by the sages' for gittin, the child is a mamzer." This is not the halachah.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
ולנה עמו בפונדקי – and there are witnesses testifying of the privacy between a man and a woman there but there are no witnesses there for the actual sexual act. The School of Hillel holds that the witnesses testifying to the privacy between a man and a woman are the very same individuals who testify about the actual sexual act, for the presumption is that nobody wants to make his intercourse with a woman one of prostitution (but wants to make her his wife thereby –see Talmud Ketubot 73a), for he has betrothed her with his sexual act. And the School of Shammai holds that they don’t say that the witnesses testifying the privacy between a man and a woman are not the very same individuals who testify about the actual sexual act, until she demonstrates that she has engaged in sexual relations.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
Introduction
The first section of the mishnah deals with a man who is suspected of having sexual relations with his divorcee. The second section deals with a “bald get”, one that does not have the proper number of signatures.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
גט קרח – [a Jewish bill of divorce that lacks signatures on each of its folds] – that its folds are greater than its witnesses (see the next Mishnah for this definition), for the Rabbis decreed a folded [bill of divorce] document because of impetuous Kohanim who would suddenly write a Jewish bill of divorce for their wives and then regret it and they would not be able to restore them [as their wives] (since Kohanim are prohibited, according to the Torah, to marry a divorcee), and they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed for them a folded Jewish bill of divorce, which is not easy to write quickly, lest while it is [being written], he becomes appeased. Hence, they write one or two lines and wrap them on the blank part and sew it/fasten it and one witness affixes his signature on the outside part of the fold, and then he returns and writes two or more lines from inside and folds them on the blank part, and the other witnesses affixes his signature on the outside part of the fold, and similarly [for] the third witness. But if there is a fold that is binding them without the signature of a witness from the back, it is a Jewish bill of divorce lacking signatures on each of its fold and is invalid. For by definition, for the number of folds should be the number of witnesses, ab initio, for we are concerned that perhaps the husband said to them: “you will all affix your signatures,” but one witness did not affix his signature, and if the woman married with this Jewish bill of divorce, she should leave both this one (i.e., her new husband) as well as that one {i.e., her former husband). And all of these foregoing conditions apply to her. And our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir who said that whomever changes from the formula that our Sages established (see Talmud Gittin 5b), In Jewish bills of divorce, the offspring are illegitimate. But this is not the Halakha.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
A man divorces his wife and then stays with her over night in an inn: Bet Shammai says: she does not require from him a second get, But Beth Hillel say she does require a second get from him. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage. And [Beth Hillel] agrees that if she is divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, because he would not [yet] take liberties with her. If a divorced woman is secluded with her ex-husband, Bet Hillel suspects that they may have had sexual relations and through the sexual act he betrothed her again (we shall learn about how betrothal is performed in the beginning of Kiddushin). Since they may have remarried, she requires another get from him. Bet Shammai is not suspicious that they had sexual relations and therefore does not require another get. Again, this debate may be connected with their debate over the grounds for divorce. Since Bet Shammai holds that divorce can only be a result of adultery (or at least suspected adultery), it is less likely that the couple will again engage in sexual relations. Bet Hillel holds that a man may divorce his wife for almost no reason and therefore there is a greater chance at reconciliation. However, Bet Hillel suspects that the divorced couple may have sex only if they were already married and assumedly had already had sexual relations while married. In this case, their prior intimacy increases the likelihood that when secluded they will again become intimate. If the divorce occurred after their betrothal but before they were ever married, since they had never been intimate before, it is less likely that they will now engage in sex. Therefore, in such a situation she does not require a second get.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
If a man marries a [divorced] woman through a “bald” get, she must leave both husbands and all the above-mentioned consequences apply to her. A “bald get” is a “sewn document”, as described in Bava Batra 10:1-2. There we learned that to protect forgeries people would sew several folds into their documents, having people sign on each fold. A “bald get” is one where there are more folds than signatures. It is “bald” because it is missing signatures and is therefore invalid. Since it is invalid, she was not properly divorced from her first husband when she married her second husband and all of the consequences which were discussed in mishnah five (and mentioned in 6-8) apply to her as well.
